Md. has better uses for $300K

March 26, 2013

Dan Rodricks' column was on target ("To monitor farm pollution, use drones," March 24). Why should the Maryland taxpayers pay the legal fees of Alan Hudson? Is this the new norm, to pay for legal fees when the state of Maryland isn't even a party to the case?

The Hudson family is hardly blameless with respect to managing their farm in an environmentally responsible way to protect the Chesapeake Bay. This case is not the General Assembly's business. Are they now going to approve cases the University of Maryland School of Law decides to pursue? Don't they have more critical business to attend to, such as monitoring polluters on a regular basis and supporting farmers who are environmentally conscientious in managing their property? That would be a much better use of the $300,000 and their time.